Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone? [A Month Later]

drstevej

[drstevej]

Thread from last month...

------------

Where Have All the FR Protestants Gone?
drstevej

Posted on 04/08/2003 12:29 PM CDT by drstevej

OBSERVATIONS:

[1] There seems to be a significantly reduced number of Protestant Threads (KJV Only being the exception for sure) in the FR Religion Forum.

[2] There seems to be a reduced number of FR Protestant posts in the Religion Forum.

This thread is a place to discuss these observations.

------------

Now the transformation to a Catholic Religion Forum is almost complete. Must be a Marian miracle or an answer to Jim Robinson's prayer, "Can't we all just get along?" Now all the dissent is within the RC fold ... NO Mass vs. Tridentine Mass. Boredom has descended, the moderators are free to nap without fear of an **** awakening them.

Could someone arrange for a funeral mass? (a clown mass in this case might be in order).

 

-- Pope Piel  I (thinking of abdicating prior to even assuming the Chair of Peter)

[B-Chan]

Liturgical dance? Look no further than Grapevine, Texas. I attended an Easter mass and baptismal there a couple of years ago that seemed more like a Disney production than a Catholic mass. The best part was the "Hawaiian alleluia" parade, featuring fire, masks, and folks dancing down the aisle to the accompaniment of the electric, funkified "praise orchestra". (Nobody genuflected as they passed before the altar; the Tabernacle was in a small room off the main hallway, across from the water fountain.) When the Consecration rolled around only ourselves and the Mexicans hit the floor (there were no kneelers); everyone else sat comfortably and causually in their folding chairs watching bread and wine become the Body and Blood of God Himself.

We called it the Hakuna Matata mass. "It means N.O. worries!"

Would I attend mass again in that parish? N.O. thanks. I'll take the closed-minded, hidebound traditionalists over at good old St. Mary the Virgin any day. Our priest does not permit the Lord Himself to be treated as an hors d'oeuvre in our parish.

[restornu]

[SoothingDave]

And I guess I'm sheltered, but, even in the wild days of the 70s and 80s, I never ran across a priest who just made stuff up (like Eucharistic Prayers) or who left things out or switched things around. Maybe the Fort Worth diocese is just a staid place.

If this is the case, then consider yourself lucky. I sure consider myself lucky. The vast majority of the people who complain about the NO Mass, are in actuality complaining about the abuses, not the rubrics themselves.

SD

[sitetest]

Dear narses,

No, I haven't disappeared, but I post a lot less.

Am I a "major proponent" of the new rite? Gee, I don't know.

I attend the new rite exclusively, even though the old rite is offered in three places on Sunday in the archdiocese in which I attend Mass. It is only 30 minutes from my home in the country to the old rite Mass in downtown Washington, DC, perhaps 40 minutes to the old rite Mass in Silver Spring, and about an hour to the old rite Mass in Southern Maryland. Mass times at these Masses are spread out, 7:30 am, 9 am, and 11 am.

So, I don't fail to attend the old rite because it is inconvenient (although an 11 am Mass is a little late for me). Therefore, it must be reasoned that I really don't feel any tug to assist at the old rite.

And I don't.

Since I was a small child, I haven't been to the old rite. And when I was a small child, I remember that the old rite was said in English. I clearly remember when the prayers changed, but the change wasn't from Latin to English.

I don't think that I would care for a Mass in Latin, since I don't understand Latin. I don't find the sound of Latin to be particularly spiritually uplifting or anything (we are trying to learn it at home), so that wouldn't do much for me, either.

Our parish priests celebrate the new rite quite well, thank you very much, and our pastor, who is a late vocation, celebrates the Mass with a deliberate seriousness of intention that is palpable. When he is celebrating it, it's difficult to leave Mass without a sense of awe at what has just happened.

So, in all these things, I suppose that I'm a proponent of the new rite. But not a "major" proponent. My "attachment" to the rite is modest. Though I would prefer the option of assisting at the old rite in English, if we were to go backwards, I will assist gladly and gratefully at any rite of the Mass that the Holy Father instructs me to.

So, though I am a proponent of the new rite, this is also true:

"defenders of the mainstream orthodoxy which includes both the NO and the Tridentine (as well as some 20+ other valid Rites)."

If it pleases the Holy Father to make available the previous Roman rite, then why shouldn't people be able to find these Masses at which to assist? Does the old rite assist them in becoming cognizant of the presence of Jesus Christ on the altar? Does it fill them with the awe that I experience often at Mass? Then why would I oppose it or any other valid rite made available to us by the Holy Father?

But heck, narses, that just puts me in the same place as sinkspur. He has no problem with folks assisting at the old rite, he just prefers the new.

Just like me.


sitetest

[SoothingDave]

There is a huge difference in the way the concept of sacrifice is used. In classic theology there is a destruction--an immolation of a victim--in other words, a repeat of the original sacrifice, over and over, for as many times as there are Masses.

Are you sure you mean "repeat"? Cause I definitely disagree with you if you think Christ is sacrificed over and over.

In the new theology, there is no destruction and the death of Christ is merely memorialized. In the first case, the sacrifice is PRESENT and offered to the Father; in the second case, the sacrifice is a historical reference that is being commemorated.

I'm sure you've read many schismatic books that tell you this, but it isn't true. The NO Mass features the re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father.

Not only does the N.O., for instance, use the term "sacrifice" differently from Catholic usage in the past, but it has dismantled the ancient tripartite sacrificial structure of the Mass as well--oblation (Offertory); immolation (Consecration) and consummation (Communion) in favor of the commemorative meal structure. This is why the Jewish prayer before meals was substituted for the Offertory and why the assembly itself is the prime focus of the priest and not the sacrifice to God the Father.

Again, you say all this without any evidence, and against the words and gestures of the Mass itself. This is why it is difficult to take those such as you seriously.

SD

[malakhi]

It is far more satisfying to see a subject changed so that he will believe whatever he is told, without hesitation, without question, blindly and obediently, humbly, self- effacingly, even grovelingly, than to see a subject suffer from psychological or physical torture.

The down side is, they'll all vote Democrat. ;o)

We are far more modern than the Inquisitors of old. Our methods are more subtle, more suave, more sophisticated, and far more certain of effect.

Mass market advertising, eh?

[drstevej]

I believe your comments about sensing the presence of God and experiencing a sense of awe is the element missing from much that is labeled worship in both RC and Protestant churches.

God is the audience for our worship. We come into His presence to acknowledge with awe [Spirit] who He is and what He has done [Truth]. He sees our hearts infallibly and where He sees both Spirit and Truth, He is delighted.

Ultimately, the question is NOT, "What did we get out of the time of worship?" it is instead, "Did the time of worship please Him?" This should be the yardstick by which we evaluate our times of gathered worship.

[huskyboy]

Most of the schismatics say that the Novus Ordo is invalid, that it is Protestant, that it fosters dissent and even clerical abuse.

For the record:

1. I do not believe I am a schismatic. First and foremost I'm Roman Catholic.
2. I do believe, that due to obvious signs of manifest heresy which have been propagated at the Vatican II "Robber's" Council, that the Holy See is indeed vacant as per Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus:

   If ever at any time it appears that... the Roman Pontiff has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy before assuming the papacy, the assumption, done even with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals, stands null, invalid and void; nor can it be said to become valid, or be held in any way legitimate, or be thought to give to such ones any power of administering either spiritual or temporal matters; but everything said, done and administered by them lacks all force and confers absolutely no authority or right on anyone; and let such ones by that very fact (eo ipso) and without any declaration required to be deprived of all dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office, and power.

   and per Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code which states

   All offices shall be vacant ipso facto (without a declaration required) by tacit resignation. . . by public defection from the Catholic Faith.

3. Consequently, as I'm Catholic, I'm under no obligation to follow or obey John Paul II. . . and it would also follow that I have to hold the opinion that the novus ordo is invalid, as there is no legitimate authority in place to even introduce it.
4. Even if I were to believe there is still a pope, I still hold the novus ordo is still invalid based on Pope St. Pius V's Quo Primum which forbids the use of any missals which have not been in existence for at least 200 years at the time the decree was promulgated. Since the novus ordo came into existence almost 35 years ago, it does not qualify to be used.
5. I also believe that a not even a pope has no right to make a break with Apostolic tradition nor to come up with new innovations; the duty for the pope is to be the guardian of the Deposit of Faith and Sacred Tradition, a duty affirmed by the Papal Coronation Oath and the Tridentine Profession of Faith.
6. I believe that the post-conciliar church and faith is a totally different one from the one Our Lord handed down to His Blessed Apostles. It is also schismatic, as per Abp. Lefebvre:

   That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.

   This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.

   This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.

   The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.

7. I do, recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to this issue rests with the magisterium of the Church (we'd have to wait for the next true pontificate at least). The route I'm taking, however, is based on sound logic and Catholic teaching.

[NYer]

But heck, narses, that just puts me in the same place as sinkspur. He has no problem with folks assisting at the old rite, he just prefers the new. Just like me.

.... and me! There is an Indult Tridentine mass each Sunday at St. Peter's in Troy, NY. That is only 15 minutes from my home. I happen to like my NO parish, despite some of the abuses that crept in when our new pastor arrived. It is actually most gratifying to address these with him. Apparently, I am not alone. It's a beautiful thing to watch as the liberal shifts gears in response to pressure from the USCCB and the Holy Father. The Lectionary, once again, is now processed down the aisle during the Entrance Rite. A crucifix has been "resurrected" (pun intended) and now stands near the altar (big discussion on this with the pastor - again, I win). Proper number of candles burning at mass, organist back in her seat, silence after communion ... a beautiful time for reflection.

[Aloysius]

Your arguments are very compelling.

[SoothingDave]

I do believe, that due to obvious signs of manifest heresy which have been propagated at the Vatican II "Robber's" Council, that the Holy See is indeed vacant as per Pope Paul IV's Cum Ex Apostolatus:

All the rest hinges on this declaration. So what "manifest heresy" is to be found at the Council?

SD

[NYer]

I believe your comments about sensing the presence of God and experiencing a sense of awe is the element missing from much that is labeled worship in both RC and Protestant churches

The Lowering into the Tomb of Our Lod

The Abbaye de Solesmes, in France, is a contemplative order of Benedictine monks. It dates from the 11th century.

In the Southern Transept is this magnificently carved piece. What stands out, however, is a statue of Mary Magdalene.

This is the most famous statue of Solesmes. Though she has been represented often in art, this portait is unique in its expression and posture. Sitting near the tomb, her elbows on her knees, her hands in prayer, she is the only one in the scene who is not looking at Christ physically, rather, eyes closed, she meditates in her heart the mystery of His death. She is also the only one whose face remains serene at this dramatic moment, and she shows no signs of sadness or disquiet. She is clearly a symbol of intense contemplative prayer and as such is something of an emblem of the monastic life.

Contemplative prayer ... something we should all practice.

[wideawake]

There is NO advocacy for the Novus Ordo, and the rare poster who attempts a defense is slapped down by having his faith questioned or is called a "modernist."

You fail to make a crucial distinction, sinkspur.

There is a difference between the NO celebrated according to the GIRM and the NO as it is adlibbed in far too many parishes.

There is also a difference in the use of Latin as recommended by the Second Vatican Council and the disuse of Latin that has occurred as a result of disobedience and adlibbing.

The bare assertion that the Novus Ordo Missae is a superior rite of Mass to the Tridentine is a matter for legitimate disagreement, and no one should be called a modernist for preferring the NO.

The fact remains, however, that if the NO were celebrated according to the GIRM every Sunday in Latin as Sacrosanctum Concilium recommends, there would be almost no sedevacantists, schismatics, etc. The NO is perfectly capable of maintaining the atmosphere of solemn dignity and reverence.

The self-hating Catholics in the USCCB chanceries and ICEL tried to warp the Mass beyond recognition at light speed and they were unable to pull it off successfully - but they did succeed in driving many Catholics underground with their disobedient behavior.

If every bishop permitted their priests to celebrate the Tridentine Rite and refrained from stigmatizing the priests who chose to celebrate it, I can't imagine the SSPX could stay in operation.

[ultima ratio]

Check with the Council of Trent which called the Mass an unbloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, continuously reenacted. This is very fundamental Catholicism. If you believe otherwise, you are worshipping as a Protestant--which is what the Novus Ordo is all about. You actually prove my case.

You say I need evidence for what I have said about the elimination of the tripartite sacrificial structure that has been eliminated by the Novus Ordo. But it is self-evident. The Offertory was thrown out by the Novus Ordo fabricators--just as Luther did five hundred years ago when he decided to dismantle the old Mass. A Jewish mealtime prayer of thanksgiving--the berakoth--has been substituted in the Novus Ordo--facing the people, again like Luther. And this is only the half of it. The entire thrust of the old Mass as a Sacrifice in propitiation for our sins has been gutted. The new Mass celebrates a universal salvation; the old Mass makes clear our sinfulness and need for personal redemption. This is why there is a constant plea for the intercession of the saints. The new Mass makes no mention of such intercessions.

Read the text more closely and then study some of the background by experts like Klaus Gamber. You will see they corroborate what I have said. Your problem is you don't understand what has happened and think because a word ("sacrifice") is tossed around that has ended the issue. But this isn't true.

One of the problems is the subtlety of the trickery used to pull one over on the faithful and suppress or subvert Catholic teachings. Words are used which no longer retain their old meanings. This is still another reason why Latin is essential--to keep meanings stable and uncorrupted, which can't happen in the vernacular which is living and constantly changing.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Most of us would probably agree that there is little doubt that radical modernism, liturgical minimalism, and the new iconoclasm found in many parishes in America reduce the sense of awe, mystery, trandscendence, and the sacred which can be found in traditional Catholic worship such as at Solesmes. It has been noted by more than a few conservative Catholic critics that "television culture" tends to define some aspects of the Novus Ordo aesthetics since the 1960s. If you have ever been to a mass where the congregation begins laughing and clapping after some point or announcement made by a priest in a homily, this is undeniable. The effect is like being in the audience for a Conan O'Brien or Jay Leno program. It seems evident that for some American Catholics they have lost the sense of reverence and devotion which defined the Mass in the past. There are probably many causes. People leaving Mass right after Communion and speeding out of the parking lot to watch a football game is another good example.

The Mass has been absorbed into the silliness and vulgarity of modern, popular, American mass culture. It doesn't seem to be a distinctively "Catholic" phenomenon but something that comes from modern popular culture. Older Catholic parishes which have resisted iconoclasm and the rest of the silliness still convey a sense of awe and reverence. It's hard to explain precisely what causes liberal clergy to desire a giddy atmosphere for worship. I really don't understand what they are thinking about. Why a priest or a liturgical minister ask the congregation to clap for someone really does seem like they think they are in some sort of television entertainment venue.

[BlackElk]

You certainly have someone's number! Good for you!

[BlackElk]

Sounds like a compliment to your Faith, considering the source.

[Domestic Church]

Contemplative prayer is a gift that isn't given to all.

[SoothingDave]

Check with the Council of Trent which called the Mass an unbloody Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, continuously reenacted. This is very fundamental Catholicism. If you believe otherwise, you are worshipping as a Protestant--which is what the Novus Ordo is all about. You actually prove my case.

You've changed words. The original said that the sacrifice of Christ is "repeated." Do you stand by that? It's a simple question.

You say I need evidence for what I have said about the elimination of the tripartite sacrificial structure that has been eliminated by the Novus Ordo. But it is self-evident.

That's not a substitute for an argument. Maybe among the chorus it is, but not out here. Try again.

The entire thrust of the old Mass as a Sacrifice in propitiation for our sins has been gutted. The new Mass celebrates a universal salvation;

Proof? The longer you guys rant like this, the less anyone takes you seriously. Have you ever seen an NO Mass? Read the Missal?

the old Mass makes clear our sinfulness and need for personal redemption. This is why there is a constant plea for the intercession of the saints. The new Mass makes no mention of such intercessions.

You really should stop reading the schismatics' literature and try reading the Mass texts. It clearly invokes the intercession of the saints.

SD

[BlackElk]

Gee, you apparently don't believe that the RCC is best exemplified by "When in Fort Worth do as the Fort Worthians do." I guess I would agree, especially when we hear of litugical dance at a Mass said by Bishop Delaney hisself.